• mechoman444
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 hours ago

    That’s because it was severely over valued for a company that produces no product and makes no profit.

    To be fair it was a solid pump and dump.

    • Doomsider
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      21 hours ago

      You mean creating a worldwide communication system that has to be completely relaunched every half decade that is the exact opposite of profitable isn’t sustainable!?

      • weew@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Actually the Starlink division itself is profitable.

        The unprofitable part is Twitter and xAI which got merged in right before the IPO.

        SpaceX was actually on the path to being quite profitable, but then Musk tried to hide his two biggest money sinks inside it.

        • Doomsider
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Profitable like Tesla? That is not actually profitable without a big chunk (like a third) of their money from government subsidies.

          https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/117956/documents/HMKP-119-JU00-20250226-SD003.pdf

          It appears SpaceX may not be as highly leveraged with the government with only 20% of its total revenue from government contracts.

          It is interesting to look this up but ultimately what I mean is long term profitability considering they will have to continuously replace their satellites every 5-10 years.

          The combining of his companies is a whole other level of fuckery that regulators should have smacked down instantly, but you know reality.